File talk:Austria Hungary ethnic.svg

there were no such things as SERBOCROATAS, pls correct!

@ user Felisopus

It doesn't matter what the original legend says since this is an adaptation; historically Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) have never identified as either Serbs or Croats. The ethnographic map by William R. Sheperd reflects - in similarity with most ethnographic efforts of the time - the nationalist influences of the time; as such Serb and Croat nationalism was more influential than the Bosniak one (despite Austro-Hungarian endorsement). The bottom-line is, if we had a 19th century map where it says "negro" would we still use that terminology in a 21st century text book handed out to students? If anything such a map would be used as an example of the bigotry of that time and not as factual education. There is a comprehensive discussion on this emerging at this file's talk page on Wikipedia, please participate if you intend reverting. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an historical document improved graphically: not your critical and "politically correct" reinterpretation, that no one has requested. If a document of 1911 says "A" must stay "A", not "ABCD*[1][2]" and so on, based on your POV. This map from 1911 can be completely wrong, false, offensive, and must remain so: faithful to the original. Deal whit it. --Felisopus (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't have the slightest understanding of the things you are saying, and in an offensive manner at that. Do you know what an adaptation in a scholastic sense is? There are no fictive requirements of originality as long as the source is indicated and the adaptive nature of the work underlined. Place names have for example been changed to reflect post-1945!?! If anything, it is the map from 1911 that qualifies as POV considering it was wrong even in its time. If you plan on interfering with information provided in Wikipedia articles please participate in the discussion taking place over there. Moreover, it is nowhere indicated on the map itself that it represents an unabridged version of Shepherd 1911, and thus runs the risk of suggesting rather absurdly that the ethnic categorization carried out then is recognized by the modern scholarship to this day; i.e. that scholars still recognize "use of the term negro". Can you step outside of your little word of pseudo-scientific rules if only for a while? Why on earth make a graphical improvement of an old outdated map only as to falsely give it a sense of modern authority? Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)